Ex parte Richards
Citations
- 117 F. 658
- 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 5125
Syllabus
<p>t. Equity—Injunction—Violation—Service of Process.</p> <p>The violation of an injunction is punishable as a contempt, though at the time of the violation no process had been served on defendants in the bill.</p> <p>2. Sam e—P l f, ad ing—Alleg at ions.</p> <p>In answer to rules in contempt proceedings for the violation of a restraining order in the district court for the Southern district of West Virginia, defendants in the rules, who were residents of West Virginia, and not named in the bill, stated that they were advised that they were parties to the original bill. The bill stated that it was brought against the defendants named, “their confederates, associates,” etc., whose citizenship and residence were unknown. Held, that such defendants in the rules were not parties to the bill, since the allegation must be treated as referring to defendants who could be made parties, and so could not refer to any resident of West Virginia, and no defendant can be made defendant to a bill save by name.</p> <p>8. Same—.Turisdiction—Collateral Attack.</p> <p>The question of jurisdiction to entertain a bill cannot be made by persons not parties to it, in a collateral proceeding to punish them for violation of a restraining order in the suit.</p> <p>4 Same—Kvidencic.</p> <p>Evidence considered, and held to show defendants in contempt proceedings for violation of an injunction to have been “confederates and associates” of defendants in the bill on which the order was issued.</p> <p>5. Same—Service of Injunction—Absence of Service.</p> <p>It is not necessary that a person be served with an injunction, in order to render him amenable to its provisions, if it appears that he had reasonable notice of it.</p> <p>6. Same—Injunction—Construction.</p> <p>An injunction restrained defendants, their associates, etc., from congregating in or about the premises of plaintiff for the purpose of inducing its employés to quit work; from conducting or leading any body of men up to or upon the pre
Judges: Keeler
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
3 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- In Re DebsSupreme Court· 1895-05-27· cited 761×
- In Re LennonSupreme Court· 1897-04-19· cited 199×
- American Steel & Wire Co. v. Wire Drawers' & Die Makers' Unions Nos. 1 & 3U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Ohio· 1898-10-18· cited 27×
- United States v. KaneU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Colorado· 1885-07-01· cited 18×
- United States v. AglerU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana· 1894-07-12· cited 10×
- Consolidated Steel & Wire Co. v. MurrayU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Ohio· 1897-05-08· cited 10×
- Mackall v. RatchfordU.S. Circuit Court for the District of West Virginia· 1897-08-21· cited 9×
- W. B. Conkey Co. v. RussellU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana· 1901-10-19· cited 7×
- United States v. WeberU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Virginia· 1902-03-25· cited 7×
- In re DoolittleU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri· 1885-03-18· cited 3×
- In re Wabash R.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Missouri· 1885-06-15· cited 3×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.